#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
OK, I have a gripe that I just need to get off my chest. Look at your PokerStars Tourney lobby at any point during the day. Look at how many friggin satellites are running.
Thats a good thing, right? Of course it is. Satellites are excellent. So whats the problem? Stars employs a T$/W$ system for their satellites - similar to how the WSOP will have satellites and issue WSOP lammers. Why on God's green earth do there need to be 30+ MTT satellites each hour - not even counting the SNG ones. If you're going to stick with a T$/W$ system, all you need to do is this: Have SNGs or MTTs for a certain amount of T$. Simple. There's no need to have specific satellites into 20 different daily events - they all use the same exact currency. The main culprit is the WCOOP satellites running right now. Is it really necessary to have different satellites to each $215 NL event? Why not just have... :03 - $2 buy-in, $22 T$/lammer :13 - $6 buy-in, $55 T$/lammer :23 - $11 buy-in, $109 T$/lammer :33 - $22 buy-in, $215 T$/lammer :43 - $55 buy-in, $535 T$/lammer etc Thats all. No need to market them as satellites for certain events if you're not going to force the satellite winners to play them. What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt. I just find it pretty annoying. The system is flawed the way it is currently setup. Its similar to the WSOP ME - less fish are going to actually play an event if they know they can simply choose not to play and receive that much in $. tl/dr = Either run tournaments w/ specific T$ prizes rather than to specific tournaments to eliminate clutter (and to allow the actual SNG satellites to fill up 20x quicker) or force play of the first satellite seat won. |
|
|